f?IFT 
OCT  20  1924 


/     New  York  University 
Ottendorfer  Memorial  Series 
of  Germanic  Monographs 


LUTHER'S  TRANSLATION 

of  the 

PSALMS  IN  1523-24 

By 
EDWARD  HENRY  LAUER 


1015 

REPRINTED  FROM  THE  JOURNAI 

OP  ENGLISH  AND  GBKMANK 

PHILOLOGY 


LUTHER'S  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  PSALMS  IN  1523-24. 

The  first  edition  of  Luther's  translation  of  the  New  Testament 
appeared  in  Wittenberg,  in  September,  1522.  It  was  received  with 
great  enthusiasm,  and  although  the  price,  one  and  one-half  gulden, 
was  high,  it  was  not  long  before  the  edition  was  exhausted.  The 
translation  had  been  completed  during  the  author's  seclusion  at 
the  Wartburg,  and  needed  but  the  critical  hand  of  Melanchthon, 
and  the  ready  advice  of  Spalatin  to  prepare  it  for  the  press.  Its 
enthusiastic  reception  acted  as  an  incentive  to  Luther,  and  led  him 
to  proceed  to  the  translation  of  the  Old  Testament.  For  this  task, 
while  at  the  Wartburg,  he  had  felt  the  need  of  advice  from  distant 
friends  and  of  books  not  available  in  his  Patmos.  In  Wittenberg 
all  these  were  at  hand,  and  so  in  the  midst  of  strife  and  controversy, 
with  the  edict  of  Worms  endangering  his  very  existence,  in  the 
midst  of  preaching  and  teaching,  Luther  set  his  hand  to  the  comple- 
tion of  his  great  undertaking:  the  translation  of  the  whole  Bible. 
The  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  appeared  piece-meal,  for  the 
convenience  of  both  the  translator  and  the  purchaser.  The  first 
part,  containing  the  Pentateuch,  appeared  about  the  middle  of  the 
year  1523;  the  second  part,  containing  the  historical  books,  ap>- 
peared  without  date,  probably  in  the  next  year.  The  third  part, 
as  planned,  was  to  contain  the  remaining  Old  Testament  books 
with  the  exception  of  the  Apochrypha.  The  stress  of  other  duties, 
however,  left  the  difl&cult  Prophets  to  be  added  later,  so  that  the 
third  part,  upon  its  appearance  in  September  or  October  of  1524, 
contained  Job,  the  Psalms,  and  the  writings  of  Solomon  (Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon).  This,  then,  was  the  first 
appearance  of  the  entire  Psalter  as  translated  by  Luther.^ 

This  translation  of  the  whole  Psalter  marks  a  most  significant 
stage  in  the  activity  of  Luther.  The  work  of  1523-24,  to  be  sure, 
is  far  removed  from  the  Psalter  as  it  appeared  in  the  complete 
Bible  of  1545,  because  every  subsequent  edition  after  1524  con- 
tained a  number  of  changes  and  corrections.     In  the  development 

*  Until  recently  it  was  thought  that  a  separate  edition  of  the  Psalter  had 
appeared  before  the  first  edition  of  the  third  part.  Pietsch  in  his  introduc- 
tion to  the  manuscript  shows  that  this  Psalter  was  printed  from  the  third  part 
edition  and  not  from  the  manuscript. 

1 


^ 


[  ;  •••     •  •"•.  •  /  Lauer 

of  the  German  Psalter  as  we  have  it  today  these  later  editions  have 
their  jDcculiar  value  and  significance.  In  the  work  of  Luther, 
however,  the  interest  must  center  in  the  first  complete  edition. 
We  need  only  remember  that  it  remained  the  basis  for  future  edi- 
tions to  show  the  logic  of  this  procedure.  What  is  more,  the  work 
of  1523-24  is  much  more  Luther's  own  than  the  subsequent  cor- 
rected editions  on  which  he  had  the  active  assistance  of  a  goodly 
circle  of  Unguists  and  scholars.  What  he  did  in  1523-24  and  how 
he  did  it  remain  after  all  the  questions  of  most  vital  importance  in 
the  determining  of  the  value  of  Luther's  contribution. 

It  has  been  the  rare  good  fortune  of  Luther  students,  that  a 
large  part  of  the  original  manuscript  of  the  Bible  translation  has 
been  preserved.  Manuscripts  in  the  archives  at  Zerbst,  in  Anhalt, 
and  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Berlin  contain  the  greater  part  of  the 
translation,  written  in  the  hand  of  Luther.  The  latter  manuscript 
is  of  particular  interest  to  us  in  this  study  of  his  Psalm  translation. 
It  contains,  in  addition  to  the  original  of  the  translation  of  Deu- 
teronomy, the  original  in  Luther's  own  hand  of  practically  all  of 
the  third  part  of  the  Old  Testament.^  It  has  remained  for  the 
careful,  scholarly  work  of  Paul  Pietsch  in  the  Weimar  edition  of 
Luther's  works  to  make  this  manuscript  available  to  the  most 
distant  student.  The  first  volume  of  the  section  devoted  to  the 
German  Bible  brings  a  faithful  transcription  of  this  manuscript 
with  all  its  corrections  and  annotations.' 

The  manuscript  is  evidently  the  one  which  went  to  the  press. 
The  marks  of  the  printer  are  everywhere  in  evidence,  and  it  is  a 
convincing  bit  of  testimony  to  the  stress  of  Luther's  activity  that  a 
manuscript  so  full  of  annotations  and  corrections  atnd  not  a  clean 
copy,  should  have  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  printer.  Of 
especial  interest  and  of  exceptional  imp>ortance  is  the  fact  that 
absolutely  everything  in  the  manuscript  with  the  exception  of  page 
numbering  and  the  marks  of  the  type-setter,  is  in  the  hand-writing 
of  Luther  himself.  The  original  draft,  as  well  as  all  marginal  and 
foot-notes,  headings,  annotations,  and  corrections,  is  clearly  the 
work  of  the  great  translator. 

The  corrections  in  the  part  of  the  manuscript  containing  the 
Psalms,  as  in  all  parts  of  the  manuscript  of  the  Bible  translation, 

•  There  are  two  gaps  in  the  Psalms:  48.2-80.9  and  95.4-109.2. 
» Luther's  Werke.    Deutsche  Bibel  I.    Weimar  1906,  pp.  453-563. 

2 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  152i3-2^'',  \     :•.**.*' 

are  extremely  numerous.  These  numerous  corrections  may,  how- 
ever, be  grouped  into  two  general  classes.  In  the  first  class  are 
immediate  corrections  made  as  the  first  draft  was  being  written 
down.  In  the  other  class  are  corrections  made  when  a  general 
revision  was  undertaken.  The  corrections  of  the  latter  class  are  in 
red  ink,  and  are  naturally  more  numerous  and  more  important  than 
those  made  immediately  at  the  time  of  the  first  draft.  That  we 
have  to  do  here  with  a  first  draft  as  well  as  a  printer's  copy  is  evi- 
dent upon  closer  examination.  The  number  of  immediate  correc- 
tions proves  this,  and  the  nature  of  some  of  them  proves  it  even 
more  conclusively.  Many  are  nothing  more  than  corrections  of 
slips  in  spelling,  case,  capitalization,  word-order,  or  verse  arrange- 
ment. The  fact  that  an  adjective  is  often  added  above  the  line,  at 
a  point  preceding  the  noun  it  modifies,  points  to  a  first  draft,  for 
such  an  omission  would  be  easily  made  and  yet  immediately  caught, 
since  the  adjective  followed  the  noun  in  both  the  Latin  and  Hebrew 
originals.^  The  corrections  in  black  ink,  then,  were  not  raiade  at 
the  time  of  a  general  revision,  but  at  the  time  of  the  first  draft.  A 
general  revision  would  have  been  far  more  comprehensive,  and 
would  have  touched  many  passages  which  afterwards  were  revised. 

When  we  discard,  and  discard  correctly,  the  idea  of  a  revision 
before  the  final  red  ink  revision,  we  come  up>on  peculiar  and  highly 
significant  characteristics  of  the  first  draft.  It  contained  (1)  many 
blanks  to  be  filled  later  with  words  or  phrases;  (2)  many  Hebrew 
and  Latin  words,  phrases,  and  sentences  in  the  text;  (3)  many 
verses  left  unfinished;  (4)  innumerable  words  and  passages  left 
with  two  or  more  parallel  translations.  All  these  peculiarities 
point  to  the  fact  that  a  revision  was  planned  and  then  immediately 
undertaken.  Whether  undertaken  at  various  stages  of  the  transla- 
tion, or  at  the  end,  we  are  unable  to  say  from  the  manuscript.  That 
it  was  a  labor  extending  over  many  different  days  is  evident,  not 
only  from  the  painstaking  care  exhibited,  but  also  from  the  fact 
that  more  care  was  expended  on  some  parts  than  on  others.  The 
call  of  other  duties  often  took  the  writer  from  his  work. 

The  red  ink  revision,  of  course,  brought  new  renditions  and 
translations,  in  some  cases  to  render  more  nearly  the  language  of 
the  original,  in  others  to  improve  upon  the  German.  But  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  first  draft  made  other  demands  on  the 

*  Such  insertions  are  found  5.8,  119.114,  and  119.148. 


revision.  It  had  to  fill  blanks,  cut  Hebrew  or  Latin  words  and 
phrases,  very  often  supply  German  equivalents,  complete  unfin- 
ished portions,  and  in  the  numerous  cases  of  parallel  translation, 
retain  either  one  or  the  other,  or  supply  a  new  word  or  phrase. 

The  nature  of  the  corrections  seems  to  prove  that  there  was  but 
one  general  revision.  There  are  a  few  instances  where  the  red  ink 
translation  is  again  changed,  but  these  cases  are  so  few  in  number 
that  they  may  reasonably  be  looked  upon  as  immediate  corrections 
made  at  the  time  of  the  general  revision.  The  resulting  changes 
are  consequently  numerous,  and  vary  in  nature  and  scope.  Never- 
theless it  is  a  significant  fact  which  casts  a  strong  light  not  only  on 
the  translating  ability  and  language  sense  of  the  scribe,  but  also  on 
his  knowledge  of  the  material  in  hand  that  forty-five  per  cent  of  the 
text  needed  no  correction  in  the  final  revision  and  went  to  press 
in  the  form  of  the  first  draft.  About  twenty  per  cent  of  all  the 
verses  have  no  corrections  whatsoever. 

This  manuscript  of  the  Psalm  translation  has  more  than  a  mere 
antiquarian  interest  for  the  student  of  Luther.  Indeed,  it  has  an 
interest  which  is  shared  by  no  other  part  of  the  Bible  translation. 
The  reason  for  this  lies  in  the  fact  that  no  other  book  of  either 
Testament  had  been  made,  by  Luther,  the  subject  of  so  much  labor 
as  the  Psalms.  Naturally,  there  is  no  other  book  in  which  he  felt  so 
much  at  home,  or  of  which  his  judgment  was  so  sure.  As  a  result, 
we  are  free  to  look  upon  the  Psalm  translation  as  the  culmination 
and  final  member  of  a  long  series  of  labors.  An  examination  of  the 
manuscript  is  then  of  immense  profit  and  advantage,  since  the 
previous  history  of  the  translation  lies  before  us,  and  we  need  seldom 
puzzle  over  the  reasons  for  a  certain  translation  or  rendition. 

With  the  manuscript  of  the  Psalm  translation,  we  are  given  the 
key  which  unlocks  the  work-shop  of  the  reformer.  A  careful  com- 
parison of  the  manuscript  with  his  earlier  exegetical  labors  explains 
to  us  the  nature  of  the  final  rendition.  A  study  of  the  corrections 
and  annotations  in  the  light  of  the  material  with  which  he  worked, 
gives  us  many  a  clue  to  guide  us  in  a  determination  of  his  sources 
and  his  attitude  towards  them.  We  are  enabled  to  trace  the 
development  of  the  work  as  it  grew,  word  by  word,  under  the  pen  of 
the  author,  and  arrive  thereby  at  a  clear  estimate  of  his  method  of 
procedure.  Finally  with  the  genesis  of  the  work  clear  to  us,  the 
sources  determined,  the  method  evolved,  we  can  better  appreciate 
the  merit  and  value  of  the  work  as  a  literary  monument,  and  dis- 

4 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-2i4^],\  ',     :  i .  { 

cern  more  easily  in  how  far  it  bears  the  personal  stamp  of  the  genius 
which  called  it  into  being. 

As  a  source,  this  manuscript  takes  precedence  over  every  other. 
Without  the  manuscript  our  study  would  be  limited  to  a  comparison 
of  the  printed  edition  of  1524  with  the  bits  of  translation  appearing 
before  that  time,  and  with  the  subsequent  editions.  In  a  deter- 
mination of  Luther's  basis  of  translation  and  method  of  procedure, 
this  would  be  but  little  fruitful.  We  could  arrive  at  conclusions 
only  by  inference  because  the  nature  of  the  printed  edition  of  1524 
would  remain  an  unknown  factor.  With  the  manuscript,  however, 
the  peculiar  nature  of  the  edition  of  1524  is  explicable.  The 
manuscript  gives  us  a  wealth  of  material  of  primary  value  in  the 
solution  of  those  problems  which  must  needs  be  left  without  solu- 
tion if  only  the  testimony  of  later  editions  be  taken  into  account. 
The  printed  edition  of  1523-24  is  the  fundamental  basis,  and  until 
the  nature  of  that  basis  is  explained,  the  nature  and  cause  and 
explanation  of  later  changes  must  remain  in  doubt.  The  material 
for  such  an  explanation  is  given  in  the  manuscript  as  set  down  by 
Luther  himself. 

An  understanding  of  the  Psalm  translation,  and  consequently  of 
the  manuscript  of  that  translation,  is  attainable  only  when  one  has 
clearly  in  mind  the  position  which  the  Psalms  occupied  in  Luther's 
everyday  life  and  thought,  and  when  one  sees  in  survey  the  scope 
and  character  of  his  work  on  the  Psalms  prior  to  the  translation  of 
1523-4. 

The  translation  of  the  Bible  was  an  undertaking  which  his  own 
teachings  and  labors  had  rendered  imperative.  He  had  set  up  the 
Scriptures  as  the  source  of  all  truth,  and  had  refused  to  submit  to 
any  judgment  not  based  on  the  Bible.  His  work  he  freely  sub- 
mitted to  the  test  of  Scriptural  argument,  and  held  his  writings 
higher  than  other  works  not  grounded  in  this  manner.  He  urged  his 
contemporaries  to  a  constant  reading  and  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  translated  the  Bible  in  order  to  give  them  the  means  and  ma- 
terial for  such  study  and  reading.  In  his  own  life,  reading  and  study 
of  the  Bible  were  not  a  mere  diversion  or  literary  exercise.  They 
were  an  absolute  necessity.  The  result  was  a  keen  and  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  Bible.  He  had  not  begun  to  study  the  Bible 
until  he  was  twenty  years  old,  but  he  made  up  in  eagerness  and  zeal 
for  this  late  beginning.  When  the  life  of  the  cloister  gave  him  the 
opportunity  for  study,  it  was  to  the  Bible  that  he  turned  his  atten- 

5 


tion,  and  he  read  so  diligently  that  in  a  short  time  he  knew  the  bool 
thoroughly.  He  afterwards  says  that  he  could  quote  the  pages  on 
which  the  various  verses  were  to  be  found.*  With  this  in  mind,  we 
can  appreciate  the  significance  of  his  remark  that  in  no  part  of  the 
Bible  was  he  so  exercised  as  in  the  Psalms.®  This  is  to  be  explained 
by  the  high  opinion  in  which  he  held  them.  For  Luther  the  mea- 
sure by  which  the  value  of  a  book  of  the  Bible  was  to  be  ascertained 
was  the  directness  of  its  reference  to  Christ  and  His  teachings. 
With  this  in  mind  he  called  the  Psalms  a  Bible  in  miniature,  and 
says  that  the  Psalter  and  the  Pauline  epistles  are  the  noblest  and  at 
the  same  time  the  most  difficult  parts  of  the  Bible.  It  was  then  but 
natural  that  in  his  earlier  studies  he  should  be  led  to  emphasize  the 
prophetic  nature  of  the  Psalms,  and  refer  everything  in  them  to  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah.  Later,  as  he  came  to  study  them  more 
closely,  he  became  more  and  more  impressed  with  the  fact  that  they 
lent  themselves  to  practical  everyday  application.  They  came  to 
have  a  value  in  themselves  apart  from  their  prophetic  qualities. 

He  pointed  out  an  essential  difference  between  the  Psalms  and 
the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  vast  body  of  the  Old 
Testament  meant  for  him  a  definition  of  the  Law  of  God  as  revealed 
to  man.  In  the  Psalms,  however,  he  saw,  not  the  stem,  law-giving, 
judging  God,  but  the  indulgent  Father,  who  generously  took  into 
consideration  the  weaknesses  and  deficiencies  of  His  children.  So 
Luther  came  to  see  in  the  Psalms  the  portrayal  of  the  soul  of  man 
seeking  salvation.  God,  the  Father,  had  foreseen  the  trials  and 
tribulations  of  the  erring  man,  and  had  given  him  this  book  of 
prayers  and  songs  for  use  in  moments  of  darkness  and  despair. 

From  our  modern  standpoint,  this  led  to  the  one  fundamental 
weakness  in  all  Luther's  exegetical  commentary  on  the  Psalms. 
Nowhere  is  any  attempt  made  at  historical  criticism.  For  Luther 
the  Psalms  contained  things  eternal,  whose  meaning  was  entirely 
independent  of  time  and  place  and  circumstance  of  composition. 
The  author  was  not  David,  but  the  spirit  of  God  speaking  through 
David.    The  "of  David"  in  the  titles  of  many  of  the  poems,  he 

construes  more  as  a  dative  and  says  " spiritus 

sancti  qui  fecit  psalmum  et  revelabit  Davidi  seu  ad  David.  "^    The 

•  Koestlin — Martin  Luther,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften.  Fttnfte  Auflage 
BerUn,    1903.    I.   56. 

•  Werke,  Weimar.    V.  22-23. 
'Werke,   Weimar.    III-41. 

6 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

Psalms  were  for  him  part  of  the  active  working-machinery  of  the 
salvation-seeking  Christian  and  his  church.  They  were  to  be 
placed  with  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Decalogue,  and  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  and  to  be  used  daily  in  private  prayer  and  public  worship. 
He  protested  that  in  the  Roman  church  not  even  a  single  "Psaelm- 
lein"  was  to  be  heard,  and  when  he  came  to  work  out  his  form 
of  church  service  the  Psalms  received  special  prominence  in  the 
form  of  responsive  readings  and  songs. 

For  the  common  man,  in  his  private  life,  the  Psalms  were  to  be  a 
source  of  comfort  and  inspiration.  Everywhere  we  find  him  direct- 
ing to  the  Psalms  the  attention  of  his  friends  in  their  hours  of 
distress  as  well  as  in  moments  when  fortune  smiled.  In  his  own 
life,  the  Psalter  was  his  constant  companion.  On  the  way  to 
Wittenberg  the  Swiss  students  found  him  in  the  inn  at  Jena,  poring 
over  a  Hebrew  Psalter;  at  the  Wartburg  he  said  his  companion  was 
the  Psalter;  at  Koburg  it  was  always  at  hand;  and  even  while  hunt- 
ing, he  carried  it  in  his  pocket.  In  his  deepest  moments  we  find 
him  turning  to  the  Psalter  for  comfort  and  consolation.  In  times 
of  serious  illness  as  in  1527  at  Wittenberg,  and  in  1537  at  Schmal- 
kalden,  he  read  Psalms  or  parts  of  Psalms.  On  hearing  of  the  death 
of  his  father,  he  took  his  Psalter  and  retired  to  his  chamber  to  pray. 
When  the  news  of  the  death  of  his  implacable  enemy,  Duke  George 
of  Saxony,  was  brought  to  him,  he  read  the  fifty-eighth  Psalm. 
When  his  own  hour  had  come  and  death  was  at  hand,  he  repeated 
several  times  the  twenty-first  verse  of  the  sixty-eighth  Psalm.  This 
constant  reading  and  reciting  of  the  Psalms  led  to  a  thorough  know- 
ledge of  the  book.  During  the  illness  of  1527  he  often  recited  the 
whole  sixth  Psalm,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  knew  by 
heart  a  large  amount  of  the  Psalter.  It  was  his  custom  to  recite 
sections  of  Psalms  together  with  his  morning  and  evening  prayers, — 
a  practice  which  he  urged  parents  to  encourage  in  their  children. 

With  this  high  opinion  of  the  Psalter  and  its  practical  value,  it 
must  have  been  exceedingly  painful  for  Luther  to  see  how  the 
Psalms  had  disappeared  from  the  public  worship  as  well  as  from  the 
every-day  religious  life  of  the  common  man.  If  the  Psalter  was  to 
serve  the  high  purposes  and  fill  the  dignified  place  which  Luther 
desired,  it  must  first  be  rescued  from  the  oblivion  into  which  it  had 
undeservedly  fallen.  This  was  what  Luther  set  out  to  accomplish, 
and  the  result  was  a  number  of  critical  and  exegetical  labors  on  the 
Psalms,  designed  to  give  a  sound  and  serviceable  explanation  of 

7 


Lauer 

them.  But  these  labors  were  not  an  end  in  themselves.  The 
Psalter,  once  drawn  out  from  "under  the  bench,"  must  be  made 
available  for  the  common  man.  The  early  labors  led  inevitably  to 
the  translation  of  the  whole  Psalter,  by  which  the  Psalms  would  be 
made  an  integral  part  of  the  every-day  religious  observance  of  the 
people. 

Luther's  earliest  labors  on  the  Psalms  were  undertaken  in  con- 
nection with  his  activity  as  a  teacher  in  the  University  of  Witten- 
berg. In  the  year  1512  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Theology  was  con- 
ferred on  Luther.  The  teachers  of  theology  of  the  time  did  but 
little  with  the  Bible,  centering  their  attention  on  the  "Sentences" 
of  Peter  Lombard.  Fortunately,  Wittenberg  had  a  chair  entitled 
"lectura  in  biblia,"  and  this  was  given  to  Luther.  Henceforward 
he  lectured  only  on  Biblical  books  of  both  Testaments,  and  called 
himself  not  Doctor  of  Theology  but  "Doktor  der  heiligen  Schrift. " 
It  is  of  significance  that  his  first  course  of  lectures  dealt  wnth  the 
Psalms,  and  no  better  proof  can  be  found  of  the  fact  that  the 
Psalms  for  him  contained  the  kernel  of  faith.  From  them  and 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  his  own  faith  had  been  drawn,  and 
these  two  books  were  the  subject-matter  of  his. earliest  lectures. 

These  early  lectures  have  come  down  to  us  as  the  first  written 
work  of  Luther  on  the  Psalms.^  Again  we  are  fortunate  in  possess- 
ing two  manuscript  remains  of  this  course  of  lectures.  The  one  is 
in  the  library  at  Wolfenbuettel,  the  other  in  Dresden.  The  former 
is  a  Latin  Psalter  printed  especially  for  Luther,  with  wide  margins 
and  double  spacing,  and  contains  numerous  interlinear  and  mar- 
ginal notes.  The  latter  contains  a  series  of  longer  commentaries  on 
a  large  number  of  the  Psalms.  These  "Scholae"  were  probably 
the  lectures  themselves,  based  on  the  "Glossae"  or  notes  in  the 
Psalter. 

Of  vast  moment  for  his  later  translation  is  this  work  of  1513-1516. 
The  work  on  a  Psalm  began  with  a  careful  study  of  the  words  them- 
selves. Although  Luther  was  as  yet  lacking  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  Hebrew,  we  find  him  here  turning  back  at  times  to  the  Hebrew 
original.  More  often  he  does  not  go  back  directly  to  the  Hebrew 
but  to  Latin  works  based  on  the  Hebrew.  He  is  aided  much  by  the 
works  of  Reuchlin,  particularly  the  "Septene  psalmos  poeniten- 
tiales  hebraeos"  (1512),  and  the  "Rudimenta  hebraica"    (1506). 

'  Dictata  super  Psalterium.    Werke,  Weimar  III.  IV. 

8 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

But  his  great  aid  on  the  Unguis  tic  side  is  the  third  Psalter  version  of 
Jerome,  the  "Psalterium  juxta  Hebraeos. "  This  was  the  only 
part  of  Jerome's  last  Bible  translation  which  had  not  been  taken  up 
as  the  Vulgate.  It  was  made  from  the  Hebrew  texts  of  Jerome's 
time,  and  was  accepted  by  Luther  as  the  best  rendition  of  the 
Hebrew.  When  he  refers  to  the  Hebrew  it  is  generally  to  Jerome's 
last  version,  to  which  the  reference  points,  and  these  references  to 
Jerome  are  countless  in  number.  In  fact  it  may  be  said  that  he 
noted  almost  every  instance  where  the  work  of  Jerome  differed  from 
the  Galilean  Psalter  of  the  Vulgate.  In  almost  every  case  the 
testimony  of  Jerome  is  accepted  over  that  of  the  Vulgate.  We 
have  here  the  first  evidence  of  Luther's  intimacy  with  and  depend- 
ence on  the  work  of  Jerome, — facts  which  have  not  been  sufficiently 
emphasized  in  the  study  of  the  Bible  translation. 

In  his  exegetical  labor  he  shows  here  a  wide  knowledge  of  authori- 
ties, and  uses  with  a  discriminating  judgment  the  whole  critical 
machinery  of  his  age.  He  said  later  that  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  he  had  used  Chrysostom,  that  Jerome  had  been  his  aid  in 
the  Epistles  to  Titus  and  Galatians,  but  that  in  working  with  the 
Psalter,  he  had  used  all  the  writers.  True  to  his  hostihty  towards 
the  philosophy  of  Scholasticism,  he  rejects  flatly  the  opinions  and 
commentary  of  the  schoolmen  and  their  master  Aristotle.  Every- 
where he  goes  back  to  the  church  fathers,  Augustine,  Cassiodorus, 
Jerome,  Lyra,  Burgensis,  and  a  host  of  minor  writers.  Not  only 
churchmen  are  brought  in.  Destined  as  these  lectures  were  for  the 
university  students,  they  were  enriched  with  numerous  references 
to  the  classic  authors,  to  Pliny,  Horace,  Ovid,  Vergil,  and  even 
Plato.  Everywhere  we  have  evidence  of  a  wide  reading  and  an 
earnest  seeking  after  the  truth  of  the  work  in  hand. 

The  Psalter  is  for  him  the  book  referring  directly  to  Christ  and 
His  teachings.  Everything  is  to  be  and  can  be  brought  into  close 
relation  to  the  life  of  Christ.  This  tropological  standpoint  is 
carried  out  to  its  limits,  and  hence  prevents  the  author  from 
assuming  any  true  attitude  of  historical  criticism.  It  leads  him 
away  from  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  Psalter,  and 
lays  the  way  open  to  numerous  allegorical  interpretations,  many  of 
which  are  almost  ludicrous.  His  great  master  in  this  was  Lefevre 
D'fitaples,  whose  "Quintuplex  Psalterium"  (Paris  1509.  Second 
Edition  15  L3)  with  its  numerous  notes  not  only  confirmed  Luther 
in  his  critical  method,  but  also  furnished  him  with  the  text  of  Je- 

9 


Lauer 

rome's  last  Psalter  version  from  the  original  Hebrew.  Everywhere, 
however,  in  critical  comment  as  well  as  in  linguistic  discipline,  we 
find  Luther  adopting  that  method  of  procedure  which  afterwards 
became  the  principle  of  his  activity  as  a  translator.  The  versions 
and  the  opinions  of  the  authorities  were  carefully  compared.  With 
a  respect  for  authority  which  savors  of  monastic  days,  Luther  first 
sought  to  justify  each  from  the  text  in  hand.  Only  seldom  was  a 
version  or  opinion  entirely  discarded.  Each  had  its  bit  of  truth  for 
Luther,  and  he  strove  to  find  that  bit.  After  such  comparison, 
however,  the  belief  that  he  also  was  a  seeker  after  truth,  permitted 
him  to  sit  in  judgment.  This  or  that  opinion  was  accepted;  some- 
times an  entirely  new  one  came  to  his  mind;  or  more  often,  the 
various  bits  of  truth  were  gathered  and  combined.  This  last 
method  led  to  interesting  results  when  he  came  to  work  out  his 
Psalm  translation. 

The  first  Psalm  commentary  of  Luther  was  not  published  during 
his  lifetime,  although  he  promised  to  prepare  it  for  the  press.  His 
failure  to  do  this  together  with  the  urgent  requests  from  his  friends 
and  listeners,  led  him  to  his  second  series  of  lectures  and  expositions 
on  the  Psalms,  which  appeared  piece-meal  from  1519  to  1521.^ 
The  work  takes  up  only  the  first  twenty-two  psalms,  the  last  of 
which  was  finished  at  the  Wartburg.  On  his  return  to  Wittenberg 
the  number  of  other  duties  prevented  the  completion  of  the  work. 
The  commentaries  are  so  voluminous  and  wordy  that  Luther  him- 
self calls  the  w^ork  "  geschwetzig. "  On  the  fifth  psalm,  for  instance, 
the  commentary  consists  of  about  thirty  thousand  words.  The 
general  method  and  attitude  are  similar  to  those  of  the  earlier  work, 
but  the  tone  is  different.  The  tone  of  the  earlier  work  was  more 
truly  academic,  that  of  the  later  more  nearly  polemic.  The  vast 
disturbances  following  the  publication  of  the  theses  in  1517,  had 
brought  new  aims  and  purposes  into  Luther's  activity,  and  his 
critical  labors  after  that  time  were  bent  to  serve  these  ends.  The 
great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  and  the  great  combat  with 
the  Papacy  are,  in  Luther's  own  words,  the  two  "loci,"  which  are 
agitated  in  his  second  Psalter  commentary.  Linguistically,  the 
work  is  an  advance,  because  of  Luther's  better  knowledge  of 
Hebrew,  although  he  still  complains  that  Hebrew  grammar  "does 
not  entirely  enter  into  the  work."  The  work  again  shows  the  great 
influence  of  Jerome,  whose  final  Psalter  rendition  is  quoted  time 

» Operationes  in  Psalmos.    Werke,  Weimar  V. 

10 


Ltither's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

and  again.  Critically,  we  find  a  slight  regression  from  the  absolute 
tropological  attitude  of  the  earlier  work.  The  Psalms  are  coming 
to  have  a  value  apart  from  their  prophetic  nature. 

In  addition  to  these  works  of  an  academic  nature,  which  were  in 
the  language  of  the  educated  classes  of  the  day,  there  were  many 
others,  popular  in  nature  and  in  the  language  of  the  people.  Lu- 
ther, early  in  his  career,  turned  his  attention  to  giving  the  lower 
classes  the  Psalms  in  the  vernacular.  A  survey  of  these  early 
translations  of  parts  of  the  Psalter  forms  an  introductory  chapter 
to  the  "Third  Part"  as  translated  in  1523-4.  The  Psalms  which  ap- 
peared prior  to  1524  are  the  following: 

1517  Psalms  6,  32,  38,  51,  102,  130,  143. 

1518  Psalm  110. 

1521  Psalms  68,  119,  37,  10,  142. 

1522  Psalms  12,  67,  51,  103,  20,  79,  25,  lO.^" 

The  earliest  work  which  Luther  himself  gave  to  the  press  bears 
the  date  1517,  and  is  a  translation  with  commentary  of  the  seven 
Penitential  Psalms.*^  In  this,  his  earliest  work  of  Psalm  transla- 
tion, it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  he  worked  not  only  with  the 
Vulgate  text,  but  also  with  the  text  of  Jerome's  "  Psalterium  juxta 
Hebraeos"  and  of  Reuchlin's  above  mentioned  "  Septene. "  In  his 
introduction  he  acknowledges  this  dependence,  and  says  that  he 
drew  on  these  authorities  for  the  sake  of  clearing  up  many  difficult 
and  vague  passages  in  the  Vulgate.  The  basis,  then,  remains  the 
Vulgate,  with  Jerome  and  Reuchlin  used  as  checks. 

With  the  appearance  of  the  "  Auslegung  des  109.  (110.)  Psalms"" 
in  1518,  we  come  upon  a  favorite  and  characteristic  practice  of 
Luther  in  his  commentary  and  translation.  The  work  is  dedicated 
to  Hieronymus  Ebner  of  Nuremberg,  at  the  request  of  Luther's 
friend  Scheurl.  This  remained  a  favorite  habit  of  Luther's  through- 
out his  activity.  Numerous  Psalms  were  translated,  explained, 
and  annotated  for  the  comfort  of  friends  and  congregations  in  dis- 
tress. Other  Psalms  were  worked  over  to  aid  in  emphasizing  some 
point  in  the  controversial  difficulties  in  which  he  was  fast  becoming 

"  Koestlin  (I.  573)  in  his  list  of  these  Psalms  omits  Psalms  10  and  142  of  the 
year  1521.  He  also  still  accepts  the  view  that  a  special  edition  of  the  Psalter 
appeared  before  the  first  edition  of  the  Third  Part  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
1524. 

"  Werke,  Weimar  I.  154-220. 
"  Werke,  Weimar  I.  687-710. 

11 


Lauer 

involved.  As  a  result  we  find  such  commentary  very  often  appended 
to  works  of  a  polemical  nature,  or  at  the  end  of  a  discussion 
touching  on  the  subject-matter  of  the  particular  Psalm.  In  regard 
to  the  translation  of  Psalm  110,  we  find  the  general  method  of  the 
Busspsalmen  carried  farther.  He  prefixed  his  comment  on  the 
Psalm  with  parallel  Latin  and  German  texts.  This  Latin  text 
agrees  exactly  with  Luther's  Vulgate,  with  the  exception  of  the 
difficult  third  verse.  Here  Luther,  because  of  decided  diflaculty 
with  the  Vulgate,  casts  loose  from  the  common  rendition,  and  by  a 
comparison  of  Jerome,  Lyra,  and  probably  the  Hebrew,  recon- 
structs his  text  so  as  to  make  sense.  His  collation  was  still  under- 
taken almost  wholly  in  the  interests  of  clearness. 

The  next  Psalm  translations  were  made  during  the  stay  at  the 
Wartburg.  Psalms  68'^  and  37^^  were  edited  for  his  poor  leaderless 
congregation  at  Wittenberg.  The  long  Psalm  119  came  as  an 
appendage  to  his  work  "Von  der  Beicht;  ob  die  der  Papst  Macht 
habe  zu  gepieten.  "^^  In  this  work  he  drew  largely  from  this 
Psalm,  and  decided  to  add  the  entire  Psalm  in  translation.  Psalm 
142  was  translated  as  a  part  of  the  work  entitled  "Troestung  fuer 
eine  Person  in  hohen  Anfechtungen,  "^®  the  whole  more  in  sermon 
form  than  usual  in  his  commentary.  Finally,  from  the  Wartburg 
dates  Psalm  10  which  appeared  as  a  part  of  the  work  bearing  the 
title  "Die  Bulla  vom  Abendfressen  des  Papstes. ""  The  Psalm 
was  added  in  translation  because  in  Luther's  mind  it  depicted  the 
Pope  as  the  enemy  of  the  church  of  Christ.  The  tone  of  the  transla- 
tion is  very  naturally  rather  more  than  a  bit  polemical,  and  when 
we  find  in  the  first  draft  of  the  translation  of  1524  such  expressions 
as"auffgeblasen",  "maul",  "tzufellet",  "tzukrummet",  "wueten," 
we  can  attribute  their  appearance  to  this  earlier  employment  of  the 
Psalm. 

In  all  these  Wartburg  labors,  we  find  the  sources  still  varying. 
In  Psalms  68,  37,  and  119,  we  have  a  rendition  drawing  nearer  to 
the  Hebrew  and  yet  showing  a  strong  Vulgate  influence.  We 
know  that  Luther  was  busy  with  the  Hebrew  bible  while  at  the 
Wartburg,  and  its  use  is  apparent  in  his  Psalm  translation.    The 

"  Werke,  Weimar  VIII.     1-35. 
"  Werke,  Weimar  VIII.     205-240. 
»  Werke,  Weimar  VIII.     129-204. 
»  Werke,  Weimar  VII.     779-791. 
"  Werke,  Weimar  VIII.    688-720. 

12 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

translation  of  the  long  Psalm  119  is  especially  interesting.  When 
we  read  it  in  the  light  of  the  earlier  "Dictata  super  Psalterium, " 
we  can  distinguish  passages  which  show  the  influence  of  the  Hebrew 
and  of  Jerome's  last  Psalter.  The  method  was  undoubtedly  similar 
to  that  of  the  "Sieben  Busspsalmen,"  of  1517  except  that  the  He- 
brew had  come  more  into  its  own.  An  interesting  peculiarity  is  to 
be  noted.  Whereas  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  is  unmistakable  in  the 
translation  itself,  the  quotations  from  other  Psalms  in  the  commen- 
tary are  almost  directly  from  the  Vulgate.  This  same  dependence 
on  the  Vulgate  is  shown  best  in  Psalm  142,  which  is  very  nearly  a 
literal  rendition  of  the  Vulgate. 

The  remaining  Psalms  which  appeared  before  the  edition  of  1524 
composed  parts  of  the  "  Betbuechlein  "  of  1522.  By  their  introduc- 
tion here,  Luther  wanted  to  bring  home  to  his  people  the  principle 
that  the  Psalms  should  form  in  their  lives,  as  they  did  in  his,  a  very 
integral  part  of  all  religious  experience  and  observance. 

There  remains  to  mention  only  the  great  use  made  of  Psalms  in 
quotation.  All  Luther's  works  of  religious  or  polemical  nature  in 
both  German  or  Latin  are  full  of  Biblical  quotations.  Of  these 
numerous  quotations,  the  quotations  from  the  Psalms  outnumber 
those  from  any  other  book  of  the  Bible.  In  his  quoting,  several 
peculiarities  are  apparent.  One  is  that  many  quotations  appear  as 
deliberate  paraphrases  in  which  nothing  more  than  the  general  tone 
of  the  Biblical  rendering  is  retained.  Another  is  that  many  quota- 
tions appear  in  free  adaptation,  leading  us  to  believe  that  Luther 
quoted  very  largely  from  memory.  An  added  support  for  this 
contention  is  ofifered  in  the  numerous  slips  which  occur  when  Luther 
attempts  to  cite  the  passage  exactly.  This  variance  of  quotation 
did  not  seem  to  worry  the  author  in  the  least.  In  his  work  "  Grund 
und  Ursach  aller  Artikel,"^^  Psa  m  19.13  appears  four  times  in 
various  forms.  This  same  verse  appears  five  times  in  other  works 
of  Luther  of  the  same  period  in  as  many  different  forms.  A  third 
peculiarity  is  the  dehberate  combination  and  adaptation  of  Bible 
quotations  to  fit  the  passage  or  occasion.  Luther's  words  as  he 
laid  the  bull  of  excommunication  on  the  flames  are  a  good  example 
of  this:  "Because  thou  hast  troubled  the  anointed  of  the  Lord,  the 
everlasting  fire  shall  destroy  thee, " — a  combination  of  Joshua  7.  25 
with  Mark  1.  24  and  Acts  2.  27,  made  to  fit  the  occasion.  This 
manner  of  quoting  throws  a  bright  light  on  Luther's  attitude 

"  Werke,  Weimar  VII.    299-458. 

13 


Lauer 

toward  the  Scriptural  text.  In  it  he  saw  the  everlasting  truth,  and 
to  it  he  turned  for  support  and  guidance  in  his  work.  But  he  was 
not  actuated  by  a  reverence  and  worship  of  the  abstract  word. 
With  the  words  themselves  he  felt  perfectly  free  to  operate  as  he 
chose,  or  as  the  exigencies  of  the  situation  demanded,  as  long  as  the 
sense,  as  he  conceived  it,  remained  intact.  This  attitude,  in  itself, 
is  of  vast  importance  when  we  find  Luther  at  work  as  a  translator. 
Filled  with  a  feeling  that  he  is  dealing  with  the  truth  and  that  he 
\  has  discovered  that  truth  for  himself,  he  is  not  hampered  by  an  awe 
or  a  reverence  for  the  words  in  their  literal  significance. 

As  a  result  of  these  continued  labors  Luther  began  the  Psalm 
translation  in  a  spirit  somewhat  different  from  that  in  which  he 
went  at  the  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  He  knew  the  Psalms  thor- 
oughly; they  had  become  part  of  his  daily  life.  His  knowledge  of 
the  languages  gave  him  the  means  of  entering  into  a  linguistic  study 
of  the  various  texts  and  versions.  Much  of  the  Psalter  had  been 
translated  by  him  before,  and  much  of  it  he  knew  by  heart  in  Latin 
and  in  German.  The  result  of  all  this  was  a  confidence  which  Job, 
for  instance,  did  not  instill.  Coupled  with  this  confidence  was  the 
determination  to  give  his  people  a  better  version  of  the  Psalter  than 
the  eariier  ones  had  been. 

The  spirit  in  which  he  began  his  translation  is  shown  in  his 
preface  to  his  second  Psalm  commentary,  the  "  Opera tiones  in 
Psalmos,"  dedicated  to  his  friend  and  protector,  the  Elector 
Frederick  the  Wise  of  Saxony.  The  words  written  there  might  be 
placed  as  an  introduction  to  the  Psalm  translation.  With  all  his 
knowledge  and  after  all  his  study,  he  still  felt  it  highly  presumptuous 
of  him  to  attempt  the  elucidation  of  the  Holy  Writ,  for  "who  will 
presume  to  say  that  he  understands  fully  and  in  all  its  parts  any  one 
book  of  the  Scriptures,"  or  "who  will  presume  to  maintain  that  he 
understands  fully  and  perfectly  any  single  Psalm. "  Nevertheless 
he  feels  sure  of  himself  and  makes  this  reckoning  with  his  authori- 
ties that  what  he  says  may  not  be  the  only  true  meaning,  but  it  is 
truth. ^'  He  may  see  many  things  which  Augustine  or  Jerome  did 
not  see.^^  The  principle  then  is  that  all  must  mutually  assist  each 
other."  He  is  ready  to  assign  to  each  his  element  of  truth,  and  to 
use  each  in  proportion  to  the  truth  which  he  believes  it  to  contain. 
It  is  in  this  spirit  that  he  begins  his  translation,  and  it  remains  for 
us  to  follow  him  in  his  labors  and  see  the  work  grow  into  being. 

"  Weike,  Weimar  V.  23. 

14 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

The  first  question  that  is  naturally  raised  in  connection  with  the 
Bible  translation,  either  as  a  whole  or  in  any  of  its  parts,  is  the 
question  as  to  the  use  of  the  original  text,  and  of  the  various  ver- 
sions as  bases  for  translation.     It  has  become  almost  a  tradition  in 
this  connection  to  say  that  the  basis  for  Luther's  New  Testament 
translation  was  the  edition  of  the  Greek  text  made  by  Erasmus,  and 
that  Luther's  Old  Testament  translation  was  from  the  original 
Hebrew  text  of  an  edition  which  appeared  in  Brescia  in  the  year 
1494.2"    Generally  speaking,  or  for  the  information  of  the  casual 
reader,  this  statement  is  correct.     With  regard  to  the  Psahns  how- 
ever, a  careful  study  of  the  manuscript  leads  us  to  a  conclusion 
which  is  not  diametrically  opposed  to  the  above  statement,  but 
which  adds  a  few  necessary  qualifications  and  reservations.     In 
preparing  his  press  manuscript  of  the  translation  of  the  Psalter, 
Luther  made  use  of  the  Hebrew  Psalter,  the  Galilean  Psalter  of  the 
Vulgate  version,  and  the  third  version  of  Jerome,  the  "Psalterium 
juxta  Hebraeos."    It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  assign  to  any  of 
these  three  the  position  of  basis,  subordinating  thereby  the  others 
to  the  rank  of  auxiliary.     Nor  is  it  possible  to  say  that  any  one  of 
the  three  was  consistently  used  as  a  check,  or  that  the  revision  was 
undertaken  at  the  hand  of  one  or  the  other.    The  original  draft  and 
the  revised  manuscript  as  it  went  to  press  were  moreover  the  result 
of  a  collating  of  the  three  versions  before  the  translator.    After  a 
comparison  of  the  three,  the  author  accepted  those  readings  which 
appeared  to  him  the  true  ones  regardless  of  the  Psalter  in  which 
they  happened  to  be  found.    Luther's  resulting  Psalter  is  not  a 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  Psalter,  nor  is  it  a  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  Psalter  corrected  from  the  Vulgate,  nor  vice  versa.     It  is  a 
translation  of  what  appeared  to  him  to  be  the  correct  version  as  it 
resulted  from  a  comparison  of  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  with  the 
versions  of  the  Vulgate  and  the  third  translation  of  Jerome.'^^ 

It  becomes  apparent  immediately  that  Luther's  treatment  of  the 
Hebrew  is  not  in  accord  with  the  principles  which  modem  research 

"  Briggs — The  Book  of  Psalms.  International  Critical  Commentary,  1908. 
I.     Introd.  24. 

*'  The  question  as  to  the  probable  influence  of  earlier  German  versions  is 
left  for  a  future  discussion.  Such  influence  has  been  traced  with  success  in 
other  parts  of  the  Bible  (Florer — Luther's  Use  of  the  Pre -Lutheran  Versions  of 
the  Bible.  Ann  Arbor,  1912.).  In  the  Psalms  no  apparent  dependence  ap- 
pears, which  would  warrant  treating  these  versions  among  the  primary  sources. 

15 


Lauer 

would  demand.  We  today  make  a  distinction  between  text  and 
version.  For  us  the  Hebrew  is  the  original  text,  and  such  works  as 
the  Gallican  Psalter  and  the  Third  Psalter  of  Jerome  we  consider 
versions.  Luther  certainly  had  this  idea,  but  in  his  method  this 
distinction  is  not  consistently  observed.  The  examples  which  we 
shall  introduce  later  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  point  that  Luther 
made  no  distinction  in  his  treatment  of  text  and  version.  The 
inevitable  result  is  that  the  text  came  to  have  but  little  more 
authority  than  the  versions.  Hence,  differences  and  deviations 
from  this  "  text- version "  were  not  necessarily  errors,  but  retained 
their  validity.  It  is  as  if  an  English  translator  of  Homer  would 
use  the  German  translation  of  Voss  and  the  Greek  text  as  of  almost 
equal  value.  Such  was  the  fundamental  error  in  Luther's  proce- 
dure, but  it  was  this  which  gave  to  his  translation  of  the  Psalms  its 
peculiar  character.  It  is  a  collation  of  the  three  Psalters  in  which 
the  Hebrew  original  text  is  treated  as  if  it  were  but  another  version, 
to  be  submitted  to  the  same  collation  and  comparison  as  the  Vulgate 
and  Jerome. 

This  treatment  of  the  Hebrew  no  doubt  had  its  source  in  Luther's 
fear  that  he  was  not  well-grounded  in  this  subject,  although  his 
translation  bears  ample  evidence  that  his  fears  were  largely  imagi- 
nary. He  had  always  insisted  that  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  was 
necessary  to  a  complete  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament.  He 
urged  the  study  of  Hebrew  in  the  universities,  and  bent  all  his 
energies  to  secure  for  his  own  university  a  competent  teacher  of  the 
subject.  He  himself  strove  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  language. 
We  find  him  at  various  times  reading  in  the  Hebrew  Psalter.  Such 
a  Psalter,  with  Latin  marginal  notes  in  his  own  hand,  has  been 
preserved  in  Frankfort-am-Main.  At  the  hand  of  Reuchlin  he  had 
gone  back  to  the  Hebrew  in  earlier  translations,  and  Reuchlin's 
"Rudimenta"  had  been  his  text-book.  His  lectures  and  commen- 
taries are  full  of  notes  on  the  Hebrew  and  conclusions  drawn  from  a 
study  of  the  Hebrew  word.  We  do  Luther  an  injustice  when  we 
belittle  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  although  his  own  remarks  would 
lead  us  to  do  so.  Most  of  the  variations  from  the  Hebrew  in  his 
translation  are  not  due  to  ignorance;  they  appear  as  errors  or 
liberties  because  we  insist  on  making  him  a  translator  of  the 
Hebrew.  He  was  not  this  and  never  intended  to  be.  In  his  pro- 
gram the  Hebrew  was  only  one  of  the  several  "versions." 

16 


Luther^ s  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

As  a  version,  it  was  considered  by  the  translator  to  be  an  impor- 
tant one,  in  fact  the  most  important  one.  This  is  attested  by  the 
part  it  plays  in  the  evolution  of  the  Psalm  manuscript.  Many 
Psalms  are  almost  direct  from  the  Hebrew  with  but  Uttle  compari- 
son with  other  versions  (Psahns  13,  14,  19,  83,  85,  86).  Other  ^ 
Psalms  show  that  he  followed  the  Hebrew  only  when  apparent  and 
almost  irreconcilable  divergences  existed  (Psalm  24).  Isolated 
passages  where  the  Hebrew  differed  from  the  other  versions  and 
where  Luther  followed  the  Hebrew  are  numerous  (23.4,  27.9, 
28.1,  28.9,  32.4,  etc.).  At  times  when  extreme  difficulty  beset  him, 
he  cast  loose  and  followed  the  Hebrew  with  no  regard  for  compari- 
son (45.15).  Where  real  differences  of  great  moment  exist,  such  as 
the  interpolation  in  Psalm  14  at  verse  three  of  the  passage  in  Ro- 
mans 3.12-18,  he  followed  the  Hebrew  as  supported  by  Jerome, 
This  dependence  on  the  Hebrew  has  misled  students  into  believing 
that  we  have  to  deal  here  with  a  free  translation  from  the  Hebrew,  or 
a  translation  mediated  by  the  Vulgate.  The  first  position  is 
untenable  because  the  seeming  freedom  can  be  explained  by  refer- 
ence to  the  Vulgate  or  Jerome's  third  Psalter.  The  second  position 
would  not  explain  passages  literally  from  the  Vulgate  or  Jerome, 
where  the  Hebrew  divergence  is  ignored.  The  logical  position  is 
one  in  which  the  three  Psalters  are  treated  as  versions  of  varying 
value,  but  all  to  be  submitted  to  the  same  method  of  procedure. 

If  Hebrew  was  not  entirely  and  actively  in  the  earlier  works, 
Latin  was  there,  and  there  on  a  firm  basis  of  critical  knowledge  and 
ample  practice.  In  his  work  on  the  Psalms,  any  attempt  on  his 
part  to  get  away  from  the  Latin  Psalter  would  have  been  folly 
indeed.  He  knew  the  Psalms  by  heart  in  Latin,  and  that  language 
was  more  fluent  on  his  tongue  than  his  native  German.  We  must 
remember  that  the  medium  through  which  all  these  men  had 
learned  their  Hebrew  and  Greek,  was  Latin,  the  language  of  the 
cloister  and  the  university.  The  Hebrew  Psalter  in  Frankfort  with 
its  marginal  notes  is  of  interest  here.  The  notes  are  but  a  few 
Latin  words  in  the  margin.  In  Psalm  119  they  are  the  beginning 
words,  found  in  the  Vulgate,  of  various  sections  of  that  long  alpha- 
betical Psalm.^  It  would  seem  that  he  read  his  Hebrew  Psalter  in 
Latin. 

Before  pointing  out  the  influence  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  on  the 
Psalm  translation,  it  is  necessary  to  protest  against  a  serious  mis- 

»  Werke,  Weimar  IX.  45. 

17 


Lauer 

take,  which,  if  accepted,  would  lead  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Vulgate 
from  serious  consideration  in  the  Bible  translation.  Many  authors 
have  been  led  into  a  supposition  that  there  was  a  feeling  of  hostiUty 
towards  the  Vulgate  in  Luther's  mind.  The  reasoning  is  easily 
followed.  The  Vulgate  was  the  book  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  as 
an  enemy  of  the  Pope  and  of  the  Church,  he  might  also  be  an  enemy 
of  the  book.  This  is  not  the  case.  The  Vulgate  was  for  Luther 
one  of  the  versions  of  the  word  of  God,  and  hence  worthy  of  serious 
consideration  and  study.  His  criticism  of  the  Roman  Church 
was  not  that  it  made  use  of  the  Vulgate,  but  that  it  made  no  use  of 
it.  To  be  sure  he  had  often  pointed  out  places  where  the  Vulgate 
might  be  improved  upon,  but  there  were  other  Vulgate  transla- 
tions which  he  had  defended:  When  another  version  or  inter- 
pretation seemed  more  logical,  he  turned  to  it;  but  when  the  Vul- 
gate spoke  truth  to  him,  it  was  worthy  of  being  accepted.  Even 
after  his  own  Bible  had  made  its  triumphant  way  through  Germany, 
there  was  no  open  hostihty  towards  the  Vulgate,  which  it  had  in 
numerous  cases  superseded.  As  late  as  1529  we  find  the  Lord's 
Prayer  in  his  Catechism  still  appearing  in  accord  with  the  Vulgate, 
even  after  his  Bible  translation  had  made  the  necessary  additions 
from  the  Hebrew.  He  wanted  to  give  his  people  a  better  Psalter 
than  the  Vulgate,  but  it  would  have  been  entirely  contradictory  to 
the  principles  and  program  of  Luther  to  work  without  the  Vulgate 
as  an  aid  in  his  Bible  translation. 

The  Vulgate  influence  on  the  first  draft  is  rather  difficult  to  mea- 
sure and  determine  exactly.  Where  Hebrew  and  Latin  are  in 
agreement  and  Luther's  translation  is  in  accord  with  them,  the 
question  of  influence  has  to  be  laid  aside.  Where  apparent  differ- 
ences occur,  we  can  proceed  with  more  assurance.  Many  of  these 
differences  have  remained  for  more  modern  investigation  to  deter- 
mine. Of  many,  however,  Luther  was  aware.  Since  he  treated 
the  Hebrew  as  a  version,  he  proceeded  in  such  cases  to  determine 
which  was  the  most  logical,  and  many  times  his  decision  favored  the 
Vulgate.  In  such  cases  we  are  able  to  point  to  an  influence  of  the 
Vulgate.  Of  equal  importance  is  the  large  number  of  passages  in 
which  his  knowledge  of  Latin  and  the  fact  that  it  was  the  medium 
through  which  the  Hebrew  had  been  learned  led  to  readings  of  the 
Hebrew  which  were  influenced  by  the  Latin.  That  this  is  an 
influence  of  the  Vulgate  is  not  to  be  denied.    The  familiarity  of 

18 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

Luther  with  the  Latin  very  naturally  led  him  to  read  the  Latin 
version  into  the  Hebrew.'^ 

Many  verses  seem  directly  from  the  Vulgate,  as,  for  instance,  the 
opening  verses  of  Psalm  20.  The  whole  of  Psalm  123  is  very  Ukely 
a  direct  rendition  of  the  Vulgate  text  with  but  Uttle  regard  for 
comparison,  whereas  Psalm  23  seems  to  have  been  subjected  to  a 
double  translation  from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Vulgate.  Almost 
countless  are  the  occurrences,  minor  in  nature,  of  similarity  of 
voice,  tense,  or  mood,  where  we  are  at  liberty  to  trace  an  influence 
of  the  Vulgate.  Of  the  two  hundred  and  twenty  odd  passages  that 
exhibit  the  influence  of  the  Vulgate,  the  following  will  serve  as 
examples.  The  relation  is  best  shown  by  a  quotation^  of  the  key 
word  in  Luther's  translation,  the  corresponding  word  in  the  Vulgate, 
and  in  a  literal  translation  from  the  Hebrew.^ 

The  Vulgate  and  Jerome's  third  version  are  of  influence,  particu- 
larly in  the  translation  of  those  words  and  phrases  which  refer  to  the 
theological  doctrines  and  beUefs  of  the  time.  This  situation  is  to 
be  explained  by  the  fact  that  critical  machinery  was  still  lacking,  by 
means  of  which  Luther  could  have  determined  the  differences  in 

-^  This  same  influence  of  the  Vulgate  was  shown  to  exist  for  Job,  in  a  paper 
by  Florer  and  Lauer,  read  before  the  Modem  Language  Association  at 
Chicago  in  1908. 

"  For  the  sake  of  convenience  and  brevity  the  following  abbreviations  will 
be  used  in  quoting:  H.  =  Hebrew,  V.  =  Vulgate,  J.  =  "  Psalterium  juxta  Hebraeos" 
of  Jerome  and  L.  =  Luther's  translation  of  1524  in  manuscript. 

^  A  word  should  be  said  with  respect  to  the  renditions  of  the  Hebrew  which 
appear  in  the  paper.  Exception  may  be  taken  to  some  on  the  ground  that 
these  are  not  the  only  possible  translations  and  in  many  cases  not  the  ones 
which  modem  research  accepts  as  correct.  Everywhere  the  attempt  was  made 
to  incorporate  those  renditions  which  would  have  been  for  Luther,  literal  trans- 
lations. It  is  obvious  that  Luther's  Hebrew  must  not  be  measured  in  the 
light  of  modem  research.  To  discover  these  Luther  renditions  was  of  course 
impossible  at  times,  but  in  most  cases,  hints  in  the  "Dictata"  and  the  "Opera- 
tiones"  coupled  with  the  historically  critical  work  of  Briggs  (see  below)  and 
the  testimony  of  modem  translators  (De  Wette,  Kautsch,  Bindseil  and  Nie- 
meyer)  made  possible  at  least  an  approach  to  accuracy. 
Ps. 


6.8   L.  zom                        V.  furore 

H.  grief 

9.21  "  lerer                         "  legislatorem 

"  fear 

15.  5  "  gellt                          "  pecuniam 

"  silver 

17.  8  "  augapfifel  im  auge    "  pupUlam  oculi 

"  daughter  of  the  eye 

30.10  "  ynndasverwesen     "  in  cormptionem 

"  in  the  ditch 

31.22  "  festenstad               "  civitate  munita 

"  dty  of  siege 

Ik  1   "  wilden                       "  barbaro 

"  strangely  speaking 

19 

Lauer 

belief  between  the  writer  of  the  Psalms  and  the  people  of  the  early 
sixteenth  century.  The  Hebrew  "goyim"  is  almost  universally 
rendered  "heyden,"  because  of  the  Vulgate  "gentes. "  In  fact 
the  Hebrew  came  to  have  that  meaning  for  him.  The  great  schism 
led  to  the  translation  "ketzer"  in  119.113  for  the  Latin  "iniquos" 
and  the  Hebrew  "those  of  doubtful  thoughts."  That  this  transla- 
tion is  also  contained  in  the  word  "heyden"  is  shown  by  a  note  in 
an  earUer  work,  in  which  the  Latin  "gentes"  is  explained  as  "contra 
Ecclesiam."*  In  the  same  way  the  Hebrew  "Sheol"  becomes 
"helle"  because  of  the  Latin  "inferno."  Strange  as  it  may  seem, 
the  name  Messiah  appears  but  once  (84.10)  in  the  Psalm  transla- 
tion; and  here,  combining  the  Vulgate  "Christi"  with  the  Hebrew 
" the  anointed",  Luther  renders  "gesalbeten  Messia. "  Luther  had 
departed  from  the  extreme  position  of  the  first  Psalm  commentary, 
in  which  everything  in  the  Psalms  was  referred  to  Christ.  Here  he 
gave  them  a  more  independent  position,  and  studiously  avoided 
reading  into  them  any  interpretation  which  might  be  turned  so  as 
to  appear  unduly  prophetic.  His  faithfulness  in  this  respect  is 
best  illustrated  by  a  Uttle  correction  in  the  title  of  Psalm  9.  The 
first  draft  "von  dem  Son"  is  changed  to  "von  der  iugent  des  sons" 
— the  change  from  capital  to  small  letter  being  of  particular  signifi- 
cance. 

The  third  version  which  served  as  a  basis  for  the  Psalm  transla- 
tion was  the  "Psalterium  juxta  Hebraeos"  of  Jerome.  Whether 
or  not  Luther  had  a  separate  edition  of  this  Psalter  we  do  not  know. 
We  do  know  that  he  used  the  text  appearing  in  the  "Quintuplex 
Psalterium"  of  Lefevre  D 'Staples,  because  his  copy  of  this  work, 
with  numerous  notes  in  Luther's  own  hand,  has  come  down  to  us. 
Just  when  Luther  first  became  acquainted  with  this  additional 
Psalter  of  Jerome  is  uncertain.  We  find  numerous  references  to  it 
in  the  "  Dictata  super  Psalterium. "  Here  in  almost  every  instance 
in  which  variations  occur,  the  Glossae  bring  the  Jerome  reading  in 
a  note,  while  the  Scholae  contain  references  not  only  to  the  text  of 
Jerome,  but  also  numerous  citations  from  his  commentaries.  The 
translation  of  the  Penitential  Psalms  was  influenced  by  this  Psalter 
as  the  introduction  says,  and  in  the  second  Psalm  commentary,  it  is 
the  "juxta  Hebraeos"  which  is  again  used  on  every  page.  In  the 
face  of  this  constant  use  of  Jerome's  last  version,  extending  over 
many  years  preceding  the  Psalm  translation,  it  is  surprising  that 

"  Werke,  Weimar  III.  179. 

20 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24  21 

the  influence  of  Jerome's  work  on  the  translation  of  1524  should 
have  been  overlooked  and  disregarded. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  Luther  respected  the  labors  of  Jerome, 
for  the  activity  of  Jerome  is  very  closely  paralleled  by  the  later  work 
of  Luther.     Jerome  began  with  a  translation  of  the  Greek  Septua- 
gint,  which  occupied  much  the  same  place  for  him  that  the  Vulgate 
did  for  Luther.    Jerome's  next  attempt  drew  in  the  Hextupla  of 
Origen,  very  much  as  Luther  later  called  on  Reuchlin  and  Jerome. 
Finally  Jerome  went  back  to  the  original  Hebrew,  which  he  trans- 
lated with  all  the  aids  he  could  muster.     So  with  Luther  in  his  final 
;  rendering.    This  last  version  of  Jerome  was  of  inestimable  value  to 
i  Luther.     In  his  earlier  labors  it  had  been  the  mediator  between  the 
{Hebrew  and  the  Latin.    In  fact  the  references  to  Jerome  in  the 
I  "Dictata"  are  made  simply  as  "Hebreo,"  and  Luther  often  quotes 
;  this  version  as  if  it  were  the  Hebrew  original.^    In  case  of  disagree- 
I  ment  between  Vulgate  and  Hebrew,  it  was  natural  to  turn  to 
Jerome,  and  in  case  of  difficulty  with  the  Hebrew,  the  last  version  of 
Jerome  came  as  a  much-needed  reference. 

To  determine  the  places  where  Jerome's  "juxta  Hebraeos" 
influenced  the  translation  is  difficult,  since  the  close  agreement  of 
Jerome  with  the  Hebrew  lays  the  interpretation  always  open  to  the 
objection  that  it  is  the  Hebrew  and  not  Jerome  which  is  being 
translated.  There  are  however  a  number  of  passages  in  which  the 
influence  of  Jerome  can  be  readily  discerned,  both  in  the  first  draft 
and  in  the  revised  version.  The  following,  quoted  by  the  key  word, 
will  serve  to  illustrate: 

Ps.  10.7    L.    geytz  J.  avaritia 


16.4 

"    gotzen 

"  idola 

2.2 

"    radschlahen 

"  tractabunt 

19.2 

"    erzelen 

"  enarrant 

29.4 

"    aierden 

"  decore 

26.7 

"    predigt 

"  predicem 

91.6 

"    seuche 

"  morsu 

35.2 

spies 

"  hastam 

In  all  these  instances,  the  corresponding  words  of  the  Vulgate  and 
of  the  Hebrew  differ  from  the  rendering  in  the  last  Psalter  of  Jerome. 
The  influence  of  Jerome  is  most  noticeable  in  the  translation  of 
those  passages  which  gave  Luther  difficulty,  or  in  which  striking 
differences  between  the  Vulgate  and  the  Hebrew  met  the  translator. 

"  Werke,  Weimar  III.  469. 

21 


Lauer 

In  such  cases  Jerome  was  called  in.  This  is  true  in  Psalm  35,  in 
which  the  "juxta  Hebraeos"  appears  as  a  mediator  between  the 
Vulgate  and  the  Hebrew.  Psalm  10  clearly  shows  the  influence  of 
Jerome,  for  Luther  here,  in  the  first  five  verses,  follows  the  version 
of  Jerome  almost  directly.  This  contention  is  borne  out  by  the 
fact  that  in  the  "Operationes  in  Psalmos,"  the  complete  rendition 
of  Jerome  is  quoted  in  the  commentary  on  the  Psalm.'^  In  one 
other  respect  is  the  influence  of  Jerome  to  be  noted.  This  is  in  the 
translation  of  the  titles.  Perhaps  nothing  in  the  whole  Psalter  has 
given  the  commentator  and  translator  more  serious  difficulty  than 
these  titles.  Our  modern  criticism  has,  to  all  appearances,  cleared 
up  the  matter  by  regarding  most  of  them  as  marks  designating 
earlier  Psalter  collections,  and  the  remainder  as  musical  directions, 
or  assignments  to  liturgical  use.  We  no  longer  see  fit  to  attempt  a 
reading  in  accordance  with  the  content  of  the  Psalm  to  which  the 
title  is  prefijced.  But  it  has  taken  centuries  to  decipher  these 
mysterious  words,  and  for  Luther  they  were  a  matter  of  difiiculty. 
In  his  earlier  works,  he  spent  much  time  and  labor  on  the  explana- 
tion of  the  titles,  mainly  because  he  attempted  to  bring  the  title 
into  accord  with  the  content  of  the  Psalm — an  attempt  which  often 
bordered  on  the  impossible.  An  examination  of  the  various  titles 
points  to  extreme  labor  on  the  part  of  Luther  and  a  leaning  toward 
the  authority  of  Jerome. 

The  common  "ynn  der  hohe"  from  "oben  zu  singen"  or  "hoch 
zu  singen"  (V.  "infinem,"  J.  "ad  victoriam,"  H.  "of  the  Direc- 
tor") is  very  much  Luther's  own,  in  accord  with  his  idea  of  the  tem- 
ple ceremony.  In  the  same  way,  the  Songs  of  Degrees  become  for 
him  first  "  stuffen  lieder  "  or  "auffsteygend  lieder, "  to  be  superseded 
by  "lieder  ym  hoehern  chor. "  The  labor  which  he  expended  on 
these  titles  is  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  difficult  "Miktam. "  In 
the  "Dictata,"^  at  the  first  appearance  of  the  word  in  the  title  of 
Psalm  16,  he  quotes  Jerome,  Paulus  Burgensis,  Lyra,  Augustine, 
and  Cassiodorus.  Finally  he  sums  up  by  saying  that  Lyra  empha- 
sizes "aureus  psalmus,"  Burgensis  "de  aurea  materia",  and  Jerome 
"ab  aureo  authore,"  and  hence  he  evolves  "Eyn  gulden  Kleynod 
Davids. "  The  influence  of  Jerome  is  seen  in  the  translation  of  the 
musical  directions  (Ps.  5.  "fur  die  erbe"  from  Jerome's  "pro  here- 
ditatibus"  and  Ps.  46  "von  der  iugent"  from  Jerome's  "pro  juven- 

"  Werke,  Weimar  V.  330. 
«  Werke,  Weimar  III.  102. 

22 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

tutibus")-  An  annotation  in  Psalm  42  bears  witness  to  the  influ- 
ence of  Jerome,  The  "Maskil"  of  the  title  had  given  trouble 
before.  Here  Luther  renders  it  "verstand  klug  lied"  and  adds  the 
Latin  "Eruditus  Psalmus"  in  accord  with  Jerome's  "Eruditio. " 
These  several  citations  point  to  an  influence  of  Jerome — an  influ- 
ence which  is  all  the  more  comprehensible  when  we  find  that  the 
[)assages  in  which  the  Jerome  influence  is  discernible  are  those 
which  were  explained  by  a  reference  to  Jerome  in  the  earlier 
exegetical  labors. 

The  influence  of  these  earlier  works  on  the  Psalm  translation  is 
not  to  be  underestimated.  The  nature  of  the  earlier  work,  the 
"Dictata  super  Psalterium,"  made  it  an  excellent  preparation  for 
the  Psalm  translation.  The  Glossae  brought  an  interUnear  com- 
mentary; the  notes  brought  parallel  renditions  from  other  versions, 
and  the  Scholae  brought  a  compilation  of  the  exegetical  labors  of 
earlier  commentators.  The  Vulgate  text  was  explained  by  the 
insertion  of  numerous  synonyms  and  explanatory  phrases.  Deriva- 
tions of  words  were  explained,  and  things  geographic  and  scientific 
were  elucidated  to  the  best  of  the  writer's  abihty.  The  second 
commentary  continued  this  method  for  the  first  twenty-two  Psalms. 
It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  these  notes  and  commentaries  come 
to  light  again  in  the  Bible  translation.  One  need  not  assume  that 
the  works  were  actually  before  Luther  at  the  time  of  translation. 
The  earlier  work  had  fijced  certain  interpretations  of  familiar  words 
and  phrases,  and  it  made  but  little  difference  which  version  was 
being  used.    A  few  striking  examples  will  sufiice. 

Ps.  7.16.  A  gloss  (Werke,  Weimar  IIL-76)  to  the  V.  "foveam" 
brings  "  perditionem "  which  appears  in  1524  as  "verderben," 
afterwards  revised  to  the  Uteral  "loch." 

Ps.  23.2  V.  "super  aquam  refectionis  educavit  me."  A  gloss 
(Werke,  Weimar  III.-139)  to  "educavit"  brings  "nutrivit"  and 
hence  1524  first  draft  "neeret  mich  am  wasser  guter  ruge." 

Ps.  41.3.  A  gloss  (Werke,  Weimar  III.-229)  to  "  animam  "  brings 
"voluntatem"  which  leads  to  "willen"  in  the  first  draft  of  1524. 
The  same  situation  prevails  in  Psalm  27.12. 

Ps.  6.8  V.  "  turbatus  est. "     In  the  Operationes  we  have  "  Reuch- 

lin  sic:  verminavit"  and  hence  the  participle  "vermottet"  in  1524. 

Ps.  22.30.     The  change  from  "Es  beugen  sich"  to  "Las  Knye 

beugen  "  is  foreshadowed  by  the  gloss  to  "  cadent " :  "  genu  flectent " 

in  the  Operationes  (Werke,  Weimar  V.-667). 

23 


Lauer 

Ps.  17,14.  The  "leutten  deyner  hand"  becomes  clear  when  we 
find  "todten"  over  the  Une  and  read  in  the  Operationes  (Werke, 
Weimar  V.-485)  that  "leutten  deyner  hand"  meant  to  Luther  those 
dying  touched  by  the  hand  of  God,  hence  Jerome  "qui  mortui  sunt 
in  profundo. "  The  "  todten  "  then  does  not  become  a  free  transla- 
tion, but  one  prepared  by  earlier  labors. 

Ps.  25. 14.  A  gloss  (Werke,  Weimar  III.-144)  to  "  hereditabit "  is 
"possidebit"  and  hence  "besitzen"  in  1524. 

From  this  discussion  of  the  sources  we  can  arrive  at  some  conclu- 
sion as  to  the  method  employed.  That  the  work  was  a  collation  of 
the  versions  is  seen  by  the  nature  of  the  first  draft.  But  one  other 
point  needs  emphasis.  A  mere  difference  of  authority  did  not 
necessarily  constitute  one  correct,  and  the  others  wrong.  Not  even 
was  the  Hebrew  favored  in  this  regard.  In  his  earlier  work,  Luther 
had  been  eager  in  all  cases  of  disagreement  to  allow  perfect  justice  to 
come  to  each  authority  Witness  the  discussion  in  the  Dictata  on 
the  word  Miktam,  in  which  seven  authorities  are  quoted  and  each 
translation  justified.  So  now  in  the  Bible  translation  he  strives  to 
accept  as  much  of  each  version  as  possible,  and  attempts  to  combine 
the  various  renderings.  At  times  it  seems  as  if  he  put  the  three 
texts  together  and  then  made  his  translation  from  the  resultant  of 
the  three.  In  a  larger  number  of  cases  it  is  the  Hebrew  and  Vulgate 
which  are  combined.^"  The  first  draft,  as  a  result  of  this  method, 
presents  a  number  of  peculiarities  worthy  of  note.  The  first  is  a 
number  of  unfinished  passages.  Very  often  a  word  gave  the  trans- 
lator difficulty  causing  a  blank  to  be  left,  or  the  insertion  of  a 
Hebrew  or  Latin  word  (44.10,  44.24,  43.2,  38.9,  118.12,  31.14, 
among  others).  In  almost  every  case,  the  cause  of  the  difficulty 
was  a  divergence  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Vulgate.  This  also  caused 
whole  passages  to  be  left  blank  (32.7  and  87.7  among  others). 

The  second  peculiarity  is  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  passages 
were  left  with  parallel  translations.  As  excellent  examples,  the 
following  may  be  quoted: 

Ps.  44.6  "woUen,"  "mugen,"  "kuenden,"  and  "  werden  "  lef t  as 
auxiliary  to  go  with  verb  "stossen, " 

Ps.  89.29  "sicher,"  "trew",  and  "fest"  as  adverb  with  verb 
"bleyben." 

»  29.1,  47.10,  2.12,  89.3,  6.7,  87.6,  88.19,  109.19,  112.6,  140.11,  and  numerous 
other  instances  are  examples  of  such  combination. 

24 


Luther^ s  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

Ps.  119.1.  Two  idioms  remaining :  "  die  on  wandel  sind  auff  dem 
wege"  and  "die  eyn  wesen  furen  on  taddel." 

Ps.  39.8  "meyn  barren  ist  auff  dich. "  The  word  "ich"  above 
tbe  line  points  to  a  second  possibility. 

Ps.  42.10.  Two  parallel  renditions:  "weyl  meyn  feynd  mich 
drenget"  and  "vmb  des  dranges  willen  engstet. " 

The  large  number  of  these  constructions  remaining  double  and 
their  various  nature  may  be  traced  to  three  causes: 

1.  The  natural  difficulties  of  translation  and  the  keen  desire  of 
Luther  to  find  the  right  word,  together  with  his  admitted  ignorance 
of  colloquial  German,  led  him  to  postpone  the  final  settlement  of  the 
correct  translation  until  the  time  of  the  general  revision. 

2.  Coupled  with  this  was  the  fact  that  Luther,  together  with  all 
his  contemporary  authors,  loved  to  pile  up  synonyms.  We  find 
this  in  all  his  earlier  work,  and  excellent  examples  can  be  found  in 
both  Latin  and  German  writings.  One  of  the  early  Latin  sermons 
has  the  following  German  insert: 

"Sunt   enim:  vergifftete   Schlangen,   Verraether, 

Verloffer,  Moerder,  Diebe,  Stroeter,  Tyrannen,  Teuffel  und  alles 
Unglueck,  verzweiffelt,  unglaubig  Neidhardt  und  Hasser.  "'^ 

In  the  "  Dictata  super  Psalterium  "  we  have  in  a  note  to  the  word 
"sigillatim"  the  following  piling  up: 

"singulatim,    singiilatim,    singulanter,    seorsum, 

solitari,  propie,  distributavi.  "'^ 

This  practice  led  to  any  number  of  insertions  of  synonyms  left  to 

be  decided  upon  revision. 

3.  In  addition  to  these  two  causes,  however,  there  was  a  third, 
entirely  in  keeping  with  his  method  of  translating.  He  found  upon 
comparison  of  the  versions  that  different  shades  of  meaning  were 
expressed.  In  the  first  flow  of  translation  it  would  have  interfered 
too  much  to  have  decided  one  way  or  the  other  at  the  time.  Hence 
many  passages  were  left  double  because  of  differences,  more  or  less 
great,  in  the  Hebrew  and  Vulgate.    To  illustrate : 

Ps. 


18.20  L, 

,  wollen:  wolgef alien 

V.  voluit 

H.  delight. 

18.46    •' 

veralltet:  faulet 

inveterati 

fade. 

21.  3   " 

wollten:  fodderten 

voluntate 

request 

37.35    " 

mechtig:  grewlich 

"  superexaltium 

ruthless. 

40.  9    " 

willen:  lust 

volue 

delight 

''  Werke,  Weimar  I.  Sermone  aus  den  Jahren  1514-1517.     Sermon  4. 
^-  Werke,  Weimar  III.   180. 

25 


V.  resusata 

H.  raise 

posuisti 

make. 

tribulationis 

oppression. 

refugiam 

habitation. 

refugiam 

fortress. 

parata 

"  established. 

pavimento 

'u     ^"^^ 

firmavit 

spread  out. 

cervices 

cord 

Lauer 

Ps.  41.11  L.  wecke:  richte 

"  44.14  "  setzest:  machst 

"  44.25  "  trubsal:  drang 

"  90.  1  "  zuflucht:  wonung 

"  91.  2  "  zuflucht:  burg 

"  93.  2  "  fertig:  bereyt 

"  119.25  "  boden:  staub 

"  136.  6  "  gefestiget:  ausbreyttet 

"  129.  4  "  ioch:  seyle 

These  peculiarities  of  the  first  draft  are  the  results  of  his  method 
of  procedure.  A  revision  was  in  the  mind  of  the  author,  while  the 
first  draft  was  in  the  process  of  completion.  When  this  revision  was 
undertaken,  the  same  principles  and  method  of  translation  still 
prevailed. 

The  revision  had  first  of  all  to  deal  with  the  unfinished  parts. 
Since  these  had  been  caused  by  a  divergence  of  the  sources  or  by 
excessive  diflBculty,  they  remained  diflScult  spots.  The  result  is 
that  in  most  cases  he  departed  from  his  method  of  comparison,  and 
followed  the  Hebrew.  At  other  places  he  made  a  last  attempt  at 
reconciling  the  versions.  The  passages  remaining  double  then  drew 
his  attention.  The  various  possibilities  were  examined  in  the  light 
of  the  versions,  and  a  decision  reached  in  favor  of  one  or  the  other. 
In  some  cases  the  form  corresponding  more  nearly  to  the  Latin  was 
favored;  in  others,  the  form  closer  to  the  Hebrew;  in  some  cases, 
both  were  discarded.  There  can  be  no  more  direct  proof  that  the 
manuscript  was  not  corrected  to  conform  to  any  one  of  the  three 
versions.  In  cases  where  it  was  merely  a  choice  of  synonym,  the 
choice  was  naturally  controlled  by  questions  of  accuracy,  variety, 
shade  of  meaning,  etc. 

In  addition  to  these  changes  in  revision  which  the  condition  of 
the  first  draft  made  imperative,  the  author  made  a  large  number  of 
others.  This  was  in  keeping  with  his  whole  aim  in  translating. 
He  wanted  to  render  the  Scriptures  into  the  best  possible  German, 
and  was  never  satisfied  with  his  work.  He  thought  there  was 
always  room  for  improvement,  even  in  places  where  there  was  no 
question  of  the  accuracy  of  the  first  draft.  Many  of  the  correc- 
tions are  to  be  attributed  to  this  indefatigable  labor  and  ardent  zeal; 
others,  however,  are  the  result  of  continued  comparison  of  the  three 
versions  before  him.  As  a  result  of  this  comparison  of  the  three 
sources,  a  large  number  of  revisions  were  made,  which  brought  the 
final  rendition  closer  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  three.    There  is  no 

25 


Luther's  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

consistency  in  this  matter.  In  some  cases  it  meant  a  change  from 
the  Hebrew  to  the  Vulgate,  again  from  the  Vulgate  to  the  Hebrew, 
with  an  occasional  influence  of  Jerome's  last  version.  This  is  an 
added  proof  that  the  revision  was  not  undertaken  at  the  hand  of  one 
version  alone. 

The  revisions  which  brought  the  final  rendition  nearer  to  the 
Vulgate,  number  about  sixty;  and  of  these,  the  following  will  illus- 
trate their  nature. 

Ps.  88.5  L.  eyn  krafftloser  man>eyn  man  on  hulffe.  H.  man 

without  strength.    V.  homo  sine  adjutorio. 
"   40.15  L.  die  lust  haben  an  meynem  vngluck>die  myr  vbels 
gonnen.     H.  those  who  delight  in  evil  for  me  V.  qui 
volunt  mihi  mala. 
"   43.2      L.  vmb  des  dranges  willen  des  feyndes>wenn  mich 
meyn  feynd  drenget.  H.  by  the  oppression  of  the 
enemy.  V.  dum  affligit  me  inimicus. 
"    89.45    L.  lessest   aufiFhoren>zustorest.    H.    made  to  cease. 

V.  destruxisti. 
"   47.5      L.  er  erwelet  vns  vnser  erbteyl>er  erwelet  vns  zum 
erbteyl.     H.  he  will  choose  for  us  our  inheritance. 
V.  Elegit  nobis  hereditatem  suam. 
There  are  about  an  equal  number  of  revisions,  which  bring  the 
final  from  the  Vulgate  nearer  to  the  Hebrew.    Of  these  the  follow- 
ing: 

Ps.      2.3    L.  last  ioch>seyle.  V.  iugum.  H.  cords. 

"      12.7    L.  sibenfeltig>  sibenmal.V.  septuplum.  H.  seven  times. 

"  18.35  L.  vnd  spannet  meyne  arm  wie  eyn  ehern  bogen>vnd 
leret  meynen  arm  den  ehern  bogen  spannen.  V.  et 
posuisti,  ut  arcum  aereum,  mea  brachia.  H.  teach- 
ing     so  that  my  arms  press  down  a 

bow  of  brass. 

"  36.9  L.  truncken>voll  werden.  V.  inebriabuntur.  H.  be 
sated. 

"  139.17  L.  Aber  wie  kostlich  sind  myr  deyne  freunde  .  .  . 
.  .  wie  mechtig  sind  yhre  heubter>aber  wie 
kostlich  sind  fur  myr  gott  deyne  gedancken,  wie 
gros  ist  yhre  summa.  V.  Mihi  autem  nimis  honor- 
ificati  sunt  amici  tui,  Deus;  confortatus  est  princi- 
patus  eorum.  H.  And  how  precious  have  been  to 
21 


Lauer 

me  thy  thoughts,  O  God:  how  strong  have  been 
their  sums. 
The  revisions,  bringing  the  corrected  manuscript  closer  to  Jerome, 
are  less  numerous.     There  are  about  a  dozen  in  all. 

Ps.    16.9    L.  ynn  sicherheyt>sicher.  V.  in  spe.  H.  in  security. 

J.  confidenter. 
"      17.4    L.  weg  des  reyssers>weg  des  reubers.    V.  vias  duras. 

H.  of  the  violent.     J.  vias  latronis. 
"     35.3    L.  las  erfur>zeuch  erfur.  V.  effundi.  H.  draw  out. 

J.  evagina. 
The  same  method  of  combining  was  carried  on  in  the  revision. 
The  Vulgate  and  the  Hebrew  are  most  often  combined. 

Ps.    31.11  L.  matt  worden>verf alien.  V.  infirmata  est.  H.  stum- 
bled. 
"     33. 16  L.  risse,  gewalltiger  >  starcker  man.  V.  gigas.  H.  mighty 

man. 
"     94. 1    L.  brich  erfur >  erscheyne.  V.  libere  egit.  H.  shine  forth. 

J.  ostendere. 
At  times  the  translation  of  his  own  note  in  the  first  draft  appears 
in  the  revised  translation. 

Ps.    29.1    L.  Kinder   der   gotter>starcken.    H.  sons  of  Gods. 
V.  fiUi  Dei. 

Note  "  filii  fortium  /  forte. " 
"    109.3  "     "ubique">"allenthalben"intext. 

And  many  times  the  final  is  a  combination  of  his  own  suggested 
possibilities. 

Ps.  25.3  "auff  dich  harret"  and  "deyn  erwartet "  >  "  deyn  erhar- 
ret." 

There  are  of  course  many  corrections  made  in  the  interests  of 
unity  and  uniformity,  as  in  Psalms  22,  118,  and  119.  Very  often 
the  aim  at  uniformity  leads  to  corrections  not  always  of  the  best  as 
in  7.17.  The  corrections  in  many  cases  show  a  great  elaborateness 
of  method,  and  a  constant  searching  for  a  correct  rendition.  For 
instance,  Ps.  7.15: 

vntugent  vnd  muhe  hat  er  empfangen  und  wird  falscheyt 
geberen>mit  boses  und  vngluck  ist  er  schwanger  und  wird 

nichts    geberen — er    wird    aber    eynen    feyl 

geberen. 
Nevertheless,  the  numerous  corrections  in  the  revision  are  made  in  a 
most  e'^onomical  manner.     Parts  of  words  are  cut  and  syllables 

28 


Luther^s  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

added,  so  that  the  final  is  often  far  from  clear.  For  instance  in  5.12 
"frolich"  is  separated  into  its  syllables  by  a  mysterious  "Dich" 
afterwards  cut.  But  the  first  syllable  of  the  word  is  not  repeated. 
In  a  few  instances,  a  regard  for  the  printer  led  Luther  to  rewrite  a 
half-verse,  but  this  is  a  rare  exception. 

It  remains  to  view  the  translated  Psalter  as  a  work  of  literary 
merit,  and  measure  thereby  the  honor  due  its  translator.  Luther 
set  out  to  give  his  people  a  Psalter  better  than  the  earlier  versions, 
and  he  considered  his  method  best  suited  to  produce  such  a  Psalter. 
That  such  a  method  may  have  its  shortcomings  or  weaknesses  in  the 
light  of  modern  research  methods  is  not  to  be  denied.  The  excel- 
lence of  the  Psalter,  however,  as  a  work  of  literary  merit,  will  go  far 
to  make  up  any  defects  in  method  and  will  render  eternal  tribute  to 
Luther's  genius  as  a  translator. 

The  Psalms  were  poetry  for  Luther.  He  wanted  them  recited 
and  sung  in  the  new  form  of  church  worship.  He  encouraged 
others  to  arrange  them  as  church  songs,  and  his  own  paraphrases 
have  given  us  some  of  the  grandest  Lutheran  hymns.  In  his 
translation  he  sought,  as  best  he  could,  to  preserve  the  poetic 
qualities  of  the  original.  The  form  he  retained  religiously,  even 
with  the  numerous  corrections,  and  he  was  very  careful  that  the 
half  verse  arrangement  should  be  consistently  carried  out.  In  all 
his  earlier  work  on  the  Psalms  he  had  taken  great  pains  to  note  any 
differences  in  verse  arrangement  and  structure.  The  peculiar 
character  of  Hebrew  poetry  was  of  course  unknown  to  him,  and 
hence  no  attempt  was  made  to  take  over  into  the  German  its  essen- 
tial qualities.  But  much  attention  was  given  to  rhythm,  balance, 
variety,  and  other  qualities  in  their  nature  poetic.  Luther  was  a 
real  poet  at  times,  and  the  occurrence  of  many  poetical  expressions 
(raunen,  beben,  brausen,  etc.)  attest  his  interest  in  the  purely 
poetical  side  of  his  work. 

In  his  earher  labors  on  the  Psalms,  Luther  had  often  had  occasion 
to  complain  of  the  vagueness  of  some  of  the  passages.  Many  a 
time  he  openly  confessed  that  a  certain  verse  was  unintelligible  to 
him.  Not  all  of  these  passages  were  cleared  up  by  the  time  he  set 
his  hand  to  the  translation  of  1524,  and  not  all  were  cleared  up  in 
the  course  of  the  work.  With  all  his  knowledge  of  the  Psalms, 
there  were  some  difficulties  which  of  necessity  remained  insur- 
mountable for  him.  A  brief  examination  of  these  difficulties  will 
show  their  nature  and  importance. 

29 


Lauer 

In  the  first  place  it  is  true  that  notwithstanding  Luther's  wide 
reading,  real  critical  machinery  for  the  study  of  the  Psalms  was 
lacking  to  him.  Our  present  era  is  just  beginning  to  make  up  this 
deficiency.  For  Luther,  the  real  nature  of  the  Psalms  was  a  closed 
book.  He  had  not  the  desire  and  not  the  means  to  view  them  in  an 
historical  Ught.  For  the  exegete,  this  situation  was  of  importance, 
while  for  the  translator,  the  lack  of  critical  works  on  the  Psalms  was 
especially  trying.  There  was  no  question  in  Luther's  mind  that 
everything  in  the  Psalms  was  authentic.  He  could  not  know  that 
much  was  merely  the  work  of  scribe  and  copyist.  To  translate 
these  later  addenda  as  integral  parts  of  the  Psalms  and  attempt  to 
weld  all  into  an  homogeneous  whole  was  well-nigh  impossible.  The 
vagueness  of  passages  in  Psalms  7  and  8  is  to  be  traced  to  this  source. 
Another  source  of  vagueness  was  the  fact  that  the  dialogue  character 
of  many  of  the  Psalms,  although  apparent,  was  not  sharply 
marked.  The  number  of  changes  of  person  in  Luther's  manuscript 
attest  to  this  diflSculty,  and  Luther  spent  much  time  in  his  earlier 
commentary  trying  to  throw  some  light  on  this  question.  In 
Psalms  2, 41,  and  91,  we  find  the  conversational  division  lost,  with 
resulting  vagueness  in  the  final  rendition. 

This  lack  of  critical  material  was  paralleled  by  a  lack  of  know- 
ledge of  the  "Realien,"  which  is  so  necessary  to  the  genesis  of  a 
translation.  Luther  and  Melanchthon  had  planned  an  edition  of  a 
map  of  the  Biblical  lands,  but  had  given  up  the  undertaking.  Their 
own  knowledge  of  the  geography  was  very  meagre.  Furthermore, 
authentic  political  history,  except  as  it  could  be  gleaned  from  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  was  unknown  to  them,  and  the  history  of  the 
neighboring  peoples  was  even  more  a  matter  of  ignorance.  In  this 
situation,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  their  knowledge  of  the  fauna  and 
flora  of  the  countries  was  only  elemental,  and  led  to  many  renditions 
mediated  by  the  Latin.  Material  on  the  manners  and  customs  of 
the  Biblical  peoples  was  of  course  more  accessible.  Much  came 
from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  in  these  Luther  was  well  versed. 
How  this  knowledge  comes  to  light  is  shown  in  a  most  interesting 
manner  in  Psalm  81.4.     The  Hebrew  has: 

"  Blow  ye  the  cornet  in  the  new  moon,  at  the  full  moon  for 
the  day  of  our  festival. " 
The  Vulgate: 

"Buccinate  in  Neomenia  tuba,  in  insigni  die  solennitatis 
vestrae." 

30 


Luther^s  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

Luther  has: 

"Ynn  vnserm  feste  der  lauberhutten. " 
The  Dictata  clears  us  up  on  this  matter."  Here  he  says  that 
"neumonden"  refers  to  September,  and  then  from  Numbers  3.23 
he  names  his  festival  accordingly.  This  is  an  excellent  example  of 
the  influence  of  his  earlier  critical  labors.  Many  passages  seemingly 
free  or  unusual  are  to  be  explained  by  a  reference  to  these  works. 

Luther,  at  a  time  later  than  his  Bible  translation,  once  expressed 
his  views  on  translation,  and,  as  is  to  be  expected,  emphasized  the 
advantages  of  keeping  to  the  sense,  and  slighting  the  word  if  neces- 
sary. As  a  result,  one  should  expect  to  find  in  his  Psalm  translation 
numerous  places  where  a  literal  rendition  is  avoided  in  favor  of  a  free 
translation.  Students  of  Luther  have  attached  too  much  impor- 
tance to  Luther's  own  words  in  this  matter,  and  have  been  led  to 
ascribe  to  him  a  method  of  translation  essentially  free.  Closer 
study  of  the  manuscript  and  of  the  method  shows  us  that  many 
translations  apparently  free  are  but  literal  translations  of  the 
developed  text,  constructed  by  comparison  and  collation.  Some 
free  passages  indeed  are  to  be  found,  but  in  much  smaller  number 
than  might  be  supposed.  A  survey  of  those  points  at  which  Luther 
translated  freely,  or,  at  which  he  introduced  into  the  translation 
elements  foreign  to  the  sources,  will  serve  to  bring  out  those  contri- 
butions in  the  Psalm-translation  which  are  clearly  the  work  of 
Luther,  regardless  of  source  or  previous  version. 

The  first  contribution  which  Luther  made  may  be  summed  up  in 
his  use  of  the  modal  auxiliaries.  It  will  be  agreed  that  this  does  not 
necessarily  mean  freedom,  since  the  original  must  certainly  have 
sought  to  express  such  shades  of  meaning  as  the  German  modals 
make  possible.  Luther,  however,  makes  the  most  of  the  modals, 
and  in  the  Psalms  uses  them  to  render  a  great  variety  of  construc- 
tion. They  are  used  to  translate  simple  future  construction,  to 
give  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  Hiphil,  to  render  the  Latin  sub- 
junctive, and  very  often  to  intensify  the  character  of  the  action 
expressed.  .  This  last  is  especially  true  of  "sollen"  and  "muessen," 
since  the  Psalms  say  much  of  obligation.  A  study  of  Luther's  use 
of  the  modals  in  all  their  varying  possibihties  would  show  him  at  his 
best  as  a  translator.  The  great  flexibility  of  the  modal  construction 
he  brought  to  bear  on  his  originals,  and  gained  thereby  a  great 
variety  and  wealth  of  expression. 

»  Werke,  Weimar  III.  611. 

31 


Laiier 

A  second  peculiarity  of  the  Luther  translation  savors  of  freedom, 
although  it  does  not  really  point  to  free  translation  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word.  Luther  was  preparing  his  translation  for  the 
everyday  man  of  his  time.  His  great  aim  was,  then,  to  bring  the 
language  of  his  translation  as  close  as  possible  to  the  tongue  of  the 
people  for  whom  it  was  intended.  Not  only  this,  but  the  references 
to  daily  life  had  to  be  to  the  life  of  German  peasant  and  workman  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  and  not  to  the  life  of  the  Jew  of  the  Monarchy 
or  the  Exile.  The  result  of  this  plan  and  endeavor  was,  in  the  first 
place,  the  appearance  of  a  number  of  colloquialisms  in  the  text. 
A  good  example  is  the  "wesscher"  for  "vir  linguosus"  or  Hebrew 
■'man  of  tongue"  in  Psalm  140.23,  or  ''har  zu  berg"  in  119.120,  and 
many  others.  A  second  result  is  the  use  of  proverbs,  or  the  transla- 
tion in  maxim  form  of  many  of  the  passages.  The  puzzling  "feyl 
geberen"  of  7.15  may  be  one  of  these.  The  third  result  is  the  open 
and  apparent  anachronism  when  the  life  and  belief  of  the  people  are 
touched.  We  have  mentioned  the  source  of  such  words  as  "helle, " 
"heyden,"  and  "ketzer. "  Another  interesting  example  is  the 
occurrence  of  the  word  "hertzogen"  in  Psalm  83.12. 

The  third  peculiarity  of  the  translation  is  more  of  the  nature  of 
real  freedom.  This  lies  in  Luther's  use  of  connectives.  The 
parallelism  of  Hebrew  poetry  was  unknown  to  him  and  his  Latin 
predecessors.  The  result  was  that  a  literal  rendition  would  have 
been  a  series  of  clauses,  connected  in  thought  to  be  sure,  but  isolated 
as  to  grammatical  structure,  or  at  most  loosely  connected  in  com- 
pound sentence  form.  That  a  connective  was  often  understood 
goes  without  saying,  and  for  the  translator  who  knew  nothing  of  the 
essential  nature  of  the  poetry  before  him,  the  expression  of  the  con- 
nective became  imperative.     In  Psalm  37.12-13: 

The  wicked  deviseth  against  the  righteous  and 

gnasheth  his  teeth  at  him. 
The  Lord  laugheth  at  him;  for  he  seeth  that  his 
day  Cometh.^ 

This  antithetical  parallelism  must  be  connected  by  Luther  to  read: 

"Aber  der  herr  lachet  sein" ;  a  reading  mediated 

by  the  Vulgate,  "  Dominus  autem " 

And  Psalm  37.1-2: 

"  Briggs  1.323. 

32 


Luther* s  Translation  of  the  Psalms  in  1523-24 

Fret  not  thyself  because  of  evil-doers,  and  be  not  envious 
against  them  that  do  wrong. 
As  grass  they  shall  speedily  wither,  and  like 
the  fresh  grass  fade.'^ 

The  Hebrew  here  is  an  emblematic  parallelism.  For  Luther  a 
grammatical  relation  is  expressed:  "Denn  wie  das  gras  .  .  . 
.  .  ,"  again  mediated  by  the  Vulgate  "Quoniam  tamquam 
foenium " 

In  such  cases  as  these,  the  introduction  of  the  connective  was 
mediated  by  the  Latin  and  did  no  violence  to  the  context.  By 
analogy  with  this  practice  however,  connectives  were  introduced  in 
large  number,  and  often  grammatical  relations  of  cause  or  purpose 
were  thereby  expressed,  which  have  no  basis  in  the  originals.  A 
very  good  example  occurs  in  Psalm  4.5.    The  first  draft  had 

"Tobet  und  sundiget  nicht. " 
The  Hebrew  has 

"Tremble  ye  and  sin  not." 
The  rendition  of  tremble  as  "tobet"  is  foreshadowed  in  the  Opera- 
tiones.'^    In  the  revision  this  translation  is  colored  by  the  Vulgate, 

"Irascimini,  et  nolite  peccare. " 
The  result  is  a  change  from  "tobet"  to  "zurnet. "    Then  the  two 
verbs  are  brought  together  in  grammatical  relation;  the  final  inserts 
a  connective;  and  we  have 

"Zurnet  yhr  so  suendiget  nicht." 
Other  places  where  such  introductions  occur  are  "drumb,"  (26.1 
and  28.5)  "dass,"  (8 L 10  and  119.17)  "so,"  (109.28  and  138.3). 
Connectives  are  introduced  in  many  other  places,  but  in  most  of 
these  they  are  to  be  found  in  the  Vulgate,  and  have  but  little  eflfect 
on  the  final  rendition. 

In  addition  to  all  these  examples  of  quasi  freedom,  there  are 
a  number  of  places  where  Luther  translates  freely  in  every  sense  of 
the  word.  In  many  cases  this  freedom  comes  as  the  result  of 
difficulty  or  because  of  a  divergence  of  the  versions.  At  such  times 
he  works  to  reconcile  the  versions,  and,  failing  in  this,  goes  ahead 
freely  (Ps.  3,3,.^,  35.15-16, 17.4, 45.9-10).  The  resulting  free  passages 
are  almost  universally  good  translations.  In  fact  some  of  the 
most  brilliant  translations  are  in  this  category  (Ps.  24.20,  36.2,  37.2, 

»  Briggs  1.323. 

^  Werke,  Weimar  V.113. 

33 


Lauer 

39.7, 45.2-3,  84.11,  88.2,  89.48).  It  remains  true,  however,  that  the 
passages  freely  translated  are  comparatively  few  in  number.  More- 
over it  is  easy  to  see  that  a  free  translation  was  not  his  aim  and 
purpose.  In  Ps.  34.13,  when  he  finds  it  necessary  to  translate 
freely,  he  recognizes  the  Uteral  rendition  in  a  footnote.  Nor  was 
an  uncompared  translation  of  either  one  of  the  versions  his  aim.  In 
Ps.  118.5  and  80.16  he  translates  from  the  Vulgate,  but  recognizes 
the  literal  Hebrew  in  the  margin.  Many  of  his  Latin  notes  are 
but  paraphrases  of  the  Vulgate,  to  be  compared  with  the  Hebrew  at 
the  time  of  revision. 

Such  is  the  Psalter  as  it  came  from  the  pen  of  the  reformer,  and 
made  its  first  appearance  in  1524.  It  came  as  a  culmination  of 
years  of  study  and  labor,  and  was  itself  the  fruit  of  hard,  concen- 
trated, persevering  activity.  The  manuscript  has  given  us  the 
material  for  studying  this  activity.  A  scrutiny  of  this  manuscript 
has  shown  us  (1)  that  Luther  worked  with  the  three  texts  before 
him;  namely,  the  Massoretic  Hebrew  text  in  the  edition  of  1484, 
the  Galilean  Psalter  of  the  Vulgate,  and  the  Psalter  as  found  in  the 
"Psalterium  juxta  Hebraeos"  of  Jerome,  (2)  that  these  three 
Psalters  were  used  not  only  during  the  completion  of  the  first  draft, 
but  also  at  the  time  the  revision  was  undertaken,  (3)  that  these 
three  texts  were  considered  of  almost  equal  value,  whereas  but  one 
was  text,  and  the  others  versions,  (4)  that  the  previous  work  on  the 
Psalms  had  prepared  a  great  deal  of  the  translation,  (5)  that  the 
method  was  a  scientific  one,  consisting  of  comparison  and  collation. 
The  Psalter,  as  it  appeared  in  1524,  is  the  result  of  an  earnest 
attempt  on  the  part  of  the  author  to  give  his  people  the  Psalms  in  a 
language  which  they  could  understand,  and  thereby  lead  them  to 
make  this  Psalter  a  part  of  their  daily  religious  worship,  both 
public  and  private. 

Edward  Henry  Lauer. 

State  University  of  Iowa. 


34 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


APR  27  I9r^ 


AUG    8  1935 


AR?  221937 


MAY   30  1943 


'J     * 


■^ 


19.  1S47 


2tk]^'^f^'^ 


l\^^.A:iY  USE 


NOV  24  195S 

RCC  D  LD 


NOV  24  1956 
iet»'k»  11  JUL 


RB< 


W/^..  ^biyh 


12;-?^v'58 


I\n21\%  , 


\^ 


A^ 


f^ 


jLk 


\C.w.  ..       •-- 


■'•» 


tu  iO  'i^- 


AUfi     1  1968  2  7 


RQvaTiMoai 


ktCEIVEU 


JUL  15 '68-5  PW 


LOAN  DirnPT 

l3  7lD*UAIi3.8 


r:  ?^o  « 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


I 


